Are You Surprised?

Is the reader surprised that the somewhat democratic election in Iran resulted in the election of a comparatively moderate president? The name of this man is Hassan Rowhani.

Newly elected President of Iran, Hassan Rowhani, elected on June 14, 2013, photo by AFP

Do you think Iran is our enemy? Would you support a war against Iran to bring it in line?

Although the United States President does not want war with Iran and some have doubts that the American electorate as a whole would support a so-called “boots on the ground” actual physical war with Iran (or anywhere in the Middle East), there is good reason to think that we could still find ourselves in such a war in the immediate future. Many influential people…NeoCons and some in the ranks of Democrats…. lobby for harsher and harsher treatment of Iran since existing sanctions have done little to change their policy regarding nuclear processes.

Here are some of the matters to consider when deciding what your own personal policy towards Iran might be.

First of all, yes, the majority of Iranians are either not very religious at all or practitioners of a peaceful, modest (as opposed to flamboyant and proselytizing) type of Shia Islam. Many would like secular government. Then there are large segments that believe in a more fundamentalist sort of Shia Islam and like more rigid rules for people to live by and are happy with their theocratic form of government. Their will, however, is usually implemented only by the force of the religious, clerical minority who actually hold power.

Hassan Rowhani, Iranian President elect, June 2013

When the people go to the polls, they get to choose only among those who have been approved by the ruling clerics so the democratic process has its flaws, but in this week’s election the people chose someone who has not been too polarizing in the past but who appears to be rational and interested in some reform and some detente among internal and external opposition. Among those they were allowed to consider Rowhani is a pretty good choice from the stand point of the West and from the standpoint of folks looking for a moderate approach to religion in government and to negotiating with the West around various issues not the least of which is nuclear enrichment.

I would like more Americans to speak up and support the President’s efforts to avoid war with Iran. He is up against many people who are urging him towards war with both Syria and Iran, in one form or another. It has been reported that Americans don’t want another war in the Mideast. I also believe that too many could be either convinced to support such a war or will be complaisant and just let it happen.

I fear Americans are biased against Iran because there is a tendency to distrust and dislike Muslims. Because there is a tendency to believe in stereotypes about Muslim folks from the Middle East that news and Hollywood images portray. Because the usual news reporters and punditry frequently refer to the Iranian taking of US hostages without filling in the background of legitimate grievances Iranians had toward the US at the time. Because the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is also discussed in a one sided fashion most of the time. Because it is pretty easy to not care overly much about bombs and guns that destroy lands far, far away.

To make war more specific and near at hand, I just heard the story of an acquaintance who served in Iraq. I had not known this story before this week as he is basically a casual acquaintance whom I know through a mutual friend. This week he chose to explain that he lost his fiance in a battle in Iraq when both were serving there. After he came home he found himself dealing with the loss of his future plans and his expected life partner, the knowledge that he was the person in his unit assigned to direct the operation in which his fiance died, and the effects of PTSD from having served in that theater.

This man is now back here in his home state and receiving therapy and attempting to manage life despite the above emotional baggage. It is said that too few of us even understand or “feel the pain” of American, much less Iraqi or Afghan families affected by war because we have no draft and such a small percentage of the population serve in the volunteer army. One of the things this man told me was that he and his fiance joined the military in part because their parents had been military families. Once in, however, he said both of them hated the military but obviously they were serving out their responsibilities as this man continued to do until he was honorably discharged.

I have read of similar stories but this is the first time I had a straightforward conversation with a veteran right in my living room where he discussed the issues so openly and honestly. And what can one say, as a tax payer, to a person whom we paid to go fight in a war that achieved little that is positive and so much that is negative? Nothing can bring back the fiance he lost. He was not comfortable with the military doctors who were available when he first needed immediate mental health care, but currently he is working through his pain and related issues with a therapist from the private sector.

We can, however, prevent future unnecessary costs and suffering. If you are not sure about Iran and our relationship with it, you can look up articles about our history with the Iranian people. I found help in that area and in several books written by both Iranians and foreigners who lived lengths of time in Iran itself. The religious traditions and practices are complicated. The politics are complicated. The cultural and historical traditions are complicated and not carbon copies of life in other Mid Eastern Islamic nations.

Iran surrounded by United States military bases and US armed forces

I can sum up a few points here. Iran either worked directly with the US or reached out to the US more than once in the last decade and a half and was rebuffed by the US, especially during the last Republican administration. For example, Iran views the Taliban as an existential threat and was working with the US right after 9/11 to suppress that group in Afghanistan.

The press rarely presents the full aspect of the nuclear issues. For one thing, those who want war or are just misinformed and paranoid, have been saying for more than 10 years that Iran’s production of a nuclear weapon is imminent. For another, many knowledgeable people believe that Iran, like Japan, wants the defensive deterrent of a potential weapon but would not actually produce one even after they have the relevant technology and enriched uranium unless directly threatened with an external attack.

Finally, on the uranium subject, other groups have threatened Iran … factions in the US and Israel, for example. Iran, as a country, however, has not threatened anybody else with a first strike. Sometimes the extremists there speak in ridiculous hyperbole….we have folks in our political arena who do the same on many subjects from unscientific claims about rape to claiming that hurricanes and tornadoes are punishments by the Judaeo/Christian God, to singing ditties like “Bomb, bomb Iran.” Again, there are knowledgeable folks on the international stage who believe Iran would not use a nuclear weapon even if it produces one. Too many countries already have nuclear weapons and some of the leaders in these countries are not very trustworthy, and yet only one country has ever used one. And that was over six decades ago. Just because most of us in this country abhor some of the philosophies of the ruling clerics does not mean that they are irrational in practical, governmental matters.

It would be horrible to go to war for a cause that is tenuous at best and at worst largely fabricated. We have done too much of that already. It would be horrible to go to war when alternative means of achieving relevant goals are available. We have done too much of that already, also.

Regardless of the significance of the recent election, the leaders of the US can push positive negotiations forward on the numbers of issues where the US and Iran seem to disagree and on the issues where we have actual interests in common. The leaders in Iran have not let the painful effects of sanctions change their minds about what they say they want and will do to continue nuclear enrichment. There is yet no weapon as such but they are adamant in their right to pursue nuclear energy and they say it is for peaceful purposes. I am not saying I completely believe them. I am saying there is so much room for negotiation and for these two countries to have a relatively peaceful and respectful relationship that I hope public opinion lets the war advocates know they need to back off.

There is no emergency so there is time for our State Department and the new President in Iran to explore helpful, non-military problem solving.

2 Responses

Linda, I think that your article is very timely ~~ especially with a group of hawkish congressional members proposing even more crippling sanctions instead of seizing this new opening for negotiations with a more receptive and reasonable President of Iran.

Rowhani also has much knowledge and experience with nuclear issues.

Here’s a really helpful article that lays out many of the choices and next best steps in moving forward on negotiations with Iran. I’ve only quoted excerpts and left out the best policy parts because of length. I strongly suggest reading the whole article for more excellent information.

Regime Change Obama Can Believe In
Iran just opened itself to a nuclear deal — but America has to make the first move.

…For the past eight years, U.S. policy has relied on pressure — threats of war and international economic sanctions — rather than incentives to change Iran’s calculus. Continuing with that approach will be counterproductive. It will not provide Rowhani with the cover for a fresh approach to nuclear talks, and it could undermine the reformists generally by showing they cannot do better than conservatives on the nuclear issue.[…]

Rowhani’s victory is not regime change in Iran — but it is a game-changer. The supreme leader and the Revolutionary Guards continue to control all the levers of power. However, the election result has altered the face of Iran, enough to put to question the continued viability of American policy. There is now both the opportunity and the expectation that Washington will adopt a new approach to strengthen reformists and give Rowhani the opening that he needs if he is to successfully argue the case for a deal with the P5+1. […]

But a reformist victory in Iran should give the administration greater room to maneuver. The American public will be more open to a new approach to Iran now, and Rowhani’s election should give Congress pause in further intensifying sanctions. Washington need not lift any sanctions yet, but simply being willing to discuss the possibility in exchange for Iranian concessions would be a sea change in the nuclear negotiations. Failing that, nothing will change in the nuclear impasse and the reformist moment could just be that. The ball is in Washington’s court.

Thanks, Mickie, this article and link are but one way readers can study the deep complexities of diplomacy in general and in specific with relationship to Iran at the moment.

I don’t know that I am very knowledgeable about the concepts, but somehow Marshal McLuhan comes to mind. Did he teach us about the meta concepts?

Did he teach us to look beyond the hardware and the daily debates about things like hardware and to use or not to use force?

Anyway, my sense is that we as Americans really need to see the over-arching concept that we have many choices. We not only can adopt the approach that diplomacy matters and can be far more effective than armed aggression (whether admitted or couched as defensive), but we can also see that we need not only to really spend time choosing among many strategic options but also among many goal options.

What do we want? What do we want for the world in terms of nuclear maintenance or nuclear proliferation? What do we want in terms of relationship with Iran? How do we justify our maintenance of a nuclear arsenal while denying it to others?

Yes, Obama is beginning another round of nuclear weapons reduction with Russia. How about complimenting him for this while encouraging him to take strong diplomatic approaches to Iran?

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.